We too often give too much weight to racial identity. We let it determine too much about us and too much about how we view others. John and I both hope for a future in which we all wear our race more “lightly,” in which it’s freighted with far less social meaning than it currently carries. But how lightly is too lightly? In this clip from our most recent subscriber-only Q&A session, I ask whether those who want a truly colorblind society risk indiscriminately discarding a precious cultural inheritance.
This clip is taken from a subscriber-only Q&A session. For access to Q&As, comments, early episodes, and a host of other benefits, click below and subscribe.
It’s a goal not a fetish.
Glenn tells us, "I sense no boundaries on the color blindness fetish.'
Well, rather unusually (I suppose the exception that proves the rule): Glenn is simply wrong in his 'sensing'.
All of us, probably Mr. Hughes also, have a whole collection of 'boundaries' that we typically use/imply/apply when speaking of 'color blindness'. (Nor would we categorize the idea of 'color blindness' as a fetish, meaning a notion which possesses magical or transcendent power).
Color blindness, much like 'gender blindness'...or 'size blindness'.... or 'physical handicap blindness'....or or or or, does not mean that we do not see color, or gender, or size, or the wheelchair that just rolled in the door. Rather it means, we see it, we are aware of it, and we consciously make no effort to weight that superficial factoid -- positively or negatively -- in any ensuing discussion or decision. That's all it means.
An individual applies for a job I've advertised. I invite them for an interview because their paper qualifications are sufficient to justify that interview. They enter my office...or Glenn's office...or anyone's office who is so hiring. IMMEDIATELY we notice and are aware of the fact that this individual, let's call them 'Pat' is: a beautiful, young, slim, sexually attractive, short, brunette female, with glasses, who's under-dressed for the interview, speaks with a slight Southern drawl, and has cold hands as we shake hers. She's also Black. We are blind to none of that. And yet we intend to dismiss it all (as much as is humanly possible) as we evaluate her (and how she interviews) for the job at hand.
That's really all there is to color blindness.
If we hire her, and we're asked, a few days later, "Who's this Pat person you just hired?' I may very well say, pointing out into the work area: "Pat's the young Black woman walking over to the copy machine. Suzie is the tall Blonde walking next to her." At that point color is simply an easy identifier. If both Suzie and Pat are young, and Black, then I may say, "Pat's the short one." But our use of demographic qualities as descriptors does not mean we're any less colorblind when it comes to hiring, firing, promotions, and the presentation of opportunities.
So, no, Mr. Loury, we are not 'boundaryless' when it comes to 'colorblindness'. All that is meant by the term is that it should never be used (color, that is) as a separator or reason to discriminate...just as we should not use sex, or physical capability, or weight, or shoe size (unless such qualities are actually pertinent to the job at hand).
Really pretty simple.
As for 'race or ethnic consciousness' being used to more fully appreciate when we are as human beings living in the 21st century. Sure, why not? Eventually even that will probably go away.
20 generations back, we each have about 2M some direct, bloodline ancestors. How many of those 2M names do we know? Maybe 100? Maybe .005% of our 20 generation ancestral total? So how much do we even know (let alone appreciate) of how far we ourselves have come from where we were? The obvious & inevitable answer: we don't. No one does, really.
And so we inevitably, if not in this generation, then the next, or the one after that -- stand by ourselves, connected to our parents and grandparents...and intellectually aware that we are the result of hundreds/thousands of generations of family-making/world-changing of which we know almost nothing. That's life.